• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Higgs Boson, String Theory, Dark Matter

PixyMisa said:
Well, either JAK's original post was poorly worded (quite possible) or he's confused about the difference between gravitons and Higgs bosons.
Click to expand...

There's a difference? O_o
 
:rolleyes:

This thread seems to attract arrogant members, JAK posted a question because he wants to learn, I do want to learn, btw, and what did he found? some "iknowitall" and "imbetterthanyou" members in all they glory!
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
:rolleyes:

This thread seems to attract arrogant members, JAK posted a question because he wants to learn, I do want to learn, btw, and what did he found? some "iknowitall" and "imbetterthanyou" members in all they glory!
Click to expand...

Minus 1 for not knowing how to conjugate "to find" or to form the possessive of a preposition.

This is the end of your journey.
 
TeaBag420 said:
Minus 1 for not knowing how to conjugate "to find" or to form the possessive of a preposition.

This is the end of your journey.
Click to expand...

Thanks, english is my third language, sometimes is difficult.
 
suggest that space is composed of double waved strings of equal frequency but of opposite phase. These waves cancel each other out (interference) resulting in a sum wave of zero. When canceling each other, they are neither seen nor detected other than via recognition of dark matter on a galactic scale. Thus, double waved strings may be the fabric of time and space. Light is just the glint off of a third wave (or other disturbance) passing through this fabric. As the fabric stretches from the disturbance, a slight frequency change between the double string waves occurs resulting in the appearance of wave packets – light. Perhaps the wave emitting light is one of the waves, and the Higgs boson is the other wave.
Click to expand...
If the opposite wave theory were to be true, it would require a single point source emitting both waves constantly at a power high enough to account for all the mass in the universe (didvided by the time the universe existed). But since the waves would then be exactly identical (except for phase) and move in exactly the same direction, they would be perturbed in exactly the same manner, so there would not be any "glints" escaping; they would always cancel out and remain undetectable.

In the case such "glints" existed after all, they would result in apparant (not real) rays that moved parallel to the original rays, and the resultant light would appear to emanate from the same point that emitted the original waves. This is not consistent with observation.

Hans
 
I personally find BDZ's English to be better than many native English speakers, even though it is also clear that it isn't his first language. I think that calling him on his use of English is therefore churlish, not to say cowardly.
 
MRC_Hans said:
Wasn't it just a joke? (albeit a coarse one)

Hans
Click to expand...
Possibly, but without a smiley, or any other indicator to suggest that, I'm afraid that it comes across as being a serious post. :(

Smilies aren't difficult to use, and in the absence of being able to hear the tone of voice the poster used in their own head they are sometimes vital tools.
 
MRC_Hans said:
If the opposite wave theory were to be true, it would require a single point source emitting both waves constantly at a power high enough to account for all the mass in the universe (didvided by the time the universe existed). But since the waves would then be exactly identical (except for phase) and move in exactly the same direction, they would be perturbed in exactly the same manner, so there would not be any "glints" escaping; they would always cancel out and remain undetectable.

In the case such "glints" existed after all, they would result in apparant (not real) rays that moved parallel to the original rays, and the resultant light would appear to emanate from the same point that emitted the original waves. This is not consistent with observation.

Hans
Click to expand...
Nicely done, Hans. Thank you.
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
:rolleyes:

This thread seems to attract arrogant members, JAK posted a question because he wants to learn, I do want to learn, btw, and what did he found? some "iknowitall" and "imbetterthanyou" members in all they glory!
Click to expand...
I have a pretty thick skin, Bodhi. Asking the question as I did, I expected some abuse.

Yet, learning comes when the experts start arguing or agreeing. Neither is proof, but it gives a "lay of the land" if you will.

It is noteworthy that Alfred Wegener was ridiculed severely by the "experts" when he proposed continental drift. Granted, most theories deserve no better, and my proposal likely falls into that category. Even so, some very useful information has been tossed out for which I am most grateful.
 
TeaBag420 said:
Minus 1 for not knowing how to conjugate "to find" or to form the possessive of a preposition.

This is the end of your journey.
Click to expand...

And none of you noticed that I should have said "possessive of a pronoun"? I'm disgusted with the lot of you. None of you will be advancing to the next round.

And I give myself a minus 10.
 
Overall, it appears that the responders on this thread prefer Einstein's General Relativity approach to "gravity" which describes this phenomena as due to the curvature of spacetime. This approach seems to obviate the need for a gravitational force. Light is massless, but particles have mass which cause curvature in spacetime to a greater or lesser degree. This seems to exclude the need for a graviton or a Higgs Boson. (True?) I prefer this in that it is a simpler, cleaner approach (except for the Riemann curvature and tensor calculations). So, let's drop the Higgs boson and graviton until a champion for them arrives.

Let me go back to what precipitated this thread:
JAK said:
...
Photons are deemed to flow in wave packets. A wave packet can also be produced by two waves of slightly different frequencies. In acoustics, this gives music a beat. Do two waves of slightly different frequencies give a particle to electromagnetic radiation as they give a beat to music?
WavePackets.gif

- http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/superposition/superposition.html
Click to expand...
I have not seen or read anything discussing why light is emitted in wave packets. For decades, I just went along with the flow, "No one knows why. It's just how it is." It was only after seeing the Kettering animations that it struck me how similar the double wave example appeared to a "wave packet" as described in various sources.

Here is another animation with a different slant on the wave packet:
http://www-personal.engin.umich.edu/~nori/squeezed/animations2.htm

And here is a suggestion that even particles may be wave packets:
"... the probability of finding a quantum (photon) at any point is proportional to the energy density of the field at that point, which is the square of the electric field vector plus the square of the magnetic field vector.
...
Establishing that an electron moving through space must be represented by a wave packet also resolves the paradox that the velocity of the waves seems to be different from the velocity of the electron. The point is that the electron waves, like water waves but unlike electromagnetic waves, have differing phase and group velocities. " - http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/Wave_Packets/Wave_Packets.html
Click to expand...
In determining a Theory of Everything, being able to reduce all matter into wave packets might be convenient.

And this just brings me back to the oddity itself - the wave packet. Can we know anymore about why it takes this form? Why is it not uniform? Is the wave packet form a result of two waves of slightly different frequencies?
 
Re: Re: Higgs Boson, String Theory, Dark Matter

JAK said:
Overall, it appears that the responders on this thread prefer Einstein's General Relativity approach to "gravity" which describes this phenomena as due to the curvature of spacetime. This approach seems to obviate the need for a gravitational force. Light is massless, but particles have mass which cause curvature in spacetime to a greater or lesser degree. This seems to exclude the need for a graviton or a Higgs Boson. (True?) I prefer this in that it is a simpler, cleaner approach (except for the Riemann curvature and tensor calculations). So, let's drop the Higgs boson and graviton until a champion for them arrives.
Click to expand...
Curvature of spacetime / general relativity is in no way incompatible with Higgs bosons / gravitons (which are definitely NOT the same, or even comparable).

Let me go back to what precipitated this thread:

I have not seen or read anything discussing why light is emitted in wave packets. For decades, I just went along with the flow, "No one knows why. It's just how it is." It was only after seeing the Kettering animations that it struck me how similar the double wave example appeared to a "wave packet" as described in various sources.

Here is another animation with a different slant on the wave packet:
http://www-personal.engin.umich.edu/~nori/squeezed/animations2.htm

And here is a suggestion that even particles may be wave packets:

In determining a Theory of Everything, being able to reduce all matter into wave packets might be convenient.

And this just brings me back to the oddity itself - the wave packet. Can we know anymore about why it takes this form? Why is it not uniform? Is the wave packet form a result of two waves of slightly different frequencies?
Click to expand...
You're taking the standard cartoon picture of a wave packet far too literally. A photon is an electromagnetic disturbance with a particular energy. The energy propogates because a changing electric field produces a changing magnetic field which produces a changing electric field which produces a . . . . .
The energy of the photon has an equivalent wavelength determined by E=hf, where E is the energy, h is the Planck constant and f is the equivalent frequency.
 
I think he may be under the impression that Einsteinian space exerts pressure or something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom